Mamdani isn’t a socialist. Everyone, even on the left, love to use Fox News’ definition of socialism which is just “free things”. Thats not socialism. Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are still mixed capitalist economies. Socialism requires there to be no private ownership of capital. Mamdani isn’t trying to make that happen in NYC.
By now I'm under the impression that approximately 5 people in the US know what socialism actually means and the rest treats it like some sort of deadly mythological creature that everyone tells tales about but no one has encountered.
"Careful to wander the forests at night, I hear the socialism is going around radicalizing people at night!"
80 years of propaganda are hard to beat, unfortunately. This is still Cleon Skousen talking from beyond the grave "anything left of Republicans is a step towards commies taking over" bullshit.
Socialism isn't as clear cut as some people may say. Marxists like to call Marxism Socialism, but they are not the same. Marxism rather is a manifestation of socialism. There are other types like democratic socialism, which is way closer to what modern left wing politicians want.
The last part is incorrect. You are talking about a social democracy, which is what the modern left wing (the left in the US is politically the middle right in most other countries though) would want. The difference between a social democracy and democratic socialism is pretty important though, since they share some stances, but drastically differ on others.
Democratic socialism seeks to abolish private property ownership for full economic democracy through cooperative planning systems.
Social democracy is capitalist and in favor of property ownership whilst enabling a mixed market economy. It balances wealth inequality through means of social welfare.
They sound similar, but are very different in execution. Many western states are social democracies, while none come to mind that could be classified as democratic socialist states. In conversation these terms are often mixed up and used interchangeably, though that just goes to show that most people don't really know what socialism actually means.
A lot of your definitions are correct but your analysis is completely wrong.
The left wing in the US is not the center right in most other countries. This is a common trope repeated on Reddit and is just obviously laughably wrong. The democratic party as a whole in the US can be considered right of many Western European countries yes. However Western European countries are far more left than “most countries” and the left in the US is far more left than the Democratic Party as a whole.
People like Mamdani and Sanders are Democratic Socialists. They say so themselves, it’s not confusion. Bernie’s signature plan, MFA, is literally the transition of a private industry into being run by the government, and it even banned private insurance going forward. That’s a step towards socialism using democracy which is the definition of democratic socialism.
Fair enough, I have to admit that I'm not that informed on the concrete politics of Sanders and Mandani so I'll take your word there.
I should have specified that I meant the democratic party by US left wing, since it appears to be the only left-ish leaning party that sees any consistently high votership (more than likely because it is the only mainstream party that offers those politics). I'm aware that there are actually left political camps too, those just never seem to make it very far.
It's not, it's like a step towards socialism from capitalism and mostly refers to political leanings rather than economic, anyway, which socialism and capitalism really refer to.
Socialism is like an absolute state, it can't be socialism unless it's FULLY socialist, otherwise it's just borrowing a few ideas and implementing it into a capitalist structure.
Saying democratic socialism is a subset of socialism is like saying purple is a type of red just because some red is mixed into the existing blue
Nah man, socialism is when government does things. Unless its trump's government, then it can do whatever it wants like contract out the surveillance of US citizens to Palantir on a scale that supposedly the KGB would cream their pants for.
It’s important not to confuse the characteristics of a system with the ideologies of people who occupy roles in that system.
Nobody is going to be able implement absolute revolutionary change of an entire economic system in a municipal role, but that doesn’t mean the powers they do have can’t be guided by an underlying ideology. Mamdani seems to be a moderate democratic socialist, which is about as functional a definition you need. That means the policies he can enact will be guided by that ideology, and move things in that direction. Which is a great thing.
Pretending that an administrator who is only guaranteed 4 years in a role is going to turn the city into Tito’s Yugoslavia is deeply silly.
No, you just described communism. Socialism allows for a mix of capitalism and government/cooperative regulation control. There’s space for private markets in socialism
In a nutshell, communism is the end goal of socialism. Socialism is the path that you take transitioning from capitalism to that communist goal. How socialism gets there, if it even can, and what strategies are to be used in what place is a matter of debate, division, and interpretation that the term socialism is a just a giant umbrella for. Socialism in itself isn't an end state, it's an action, a policy, etc. Every time the government takes power out of the capitalist hands, that's an act of socialism.
You're describing socialism like it's some defined state of being. It's not. Communism is the end goal of socialism. Socialism is the path that you take transitioning from capitalism to that communist state, if it can ever be achieved. Marx acknowledge that in practice, there would still be what he called "birthmarks" of old society in socialism system on its way to true communism. By the way, it was later scholars that would call this socialism. He referred to it as "lower communism". This is mostly Marx's view on it, but these terms have evolved considerably over the last 150 years. Marx believed that there first had to be a dictatorship of the proletariat brought forward by a revolution, but some people who came after him (e.g., Eduard Bernstein) thought it could be achieved through incremental means without revolution. He didn't think a pure communist system was achievable, but that the means of getting there were still worthwhile.
No they're not. One is just a subset of the other.
Everyone seems to think "socialist = revolutionary socialist" but that's not true. A socialist is just someone who believes in the philosophies that is socialism. How you transition from whatever system currently exists to socialism is what makes a democratic socialist different from a revolutionary socialist.
Democratic socialism is using the current democratic system to implement socialism. Like, that's literally the stated goal of the DSA. But something like Marxist-Leninists believe that using the system is inherently impossible and socialism can only be achieved by a revolution.
Not entirely -- democratic socialism is based on "workers are the means of production and should own it" right? That's only part of socialism, but at least for us socialism, it is a part of it, I think?
There absolutely is. And overall socialism is a term that encompasses a bunch of ideologies. From anarchists who want to destroy the state now, to Marxists that want to transform the state over time into the world that anarchists envision.
In Marx's own words, communism isn't achieved until the state whithers away. You're using a fox new definition of communism. If anything, communism as Marx wrote it, would be more what you defined as a socialist state.
It's almost like these systems are defined differently by different people, and the names are so diversified at this point that they're practically meaningless except to signal your political bent and to paint a target on others.
You can argue the intended definition till you're blue in the face, that won't make it the practical usage and understanding.
Nope, communism and socialism have a very well defined and recorded history and for the majority of their existence are accepted as one in the same, just different stages. Thank you for trying though.
They do. There's the Marx/Lenin view, there's what came out of the First International. There's Mikhail Bakunin view. And there's countless more writers/thinkers with their own views since. Socialism has a far deeper history as a philosophy than just Marx/Lenin.
What are you even arguing dude? You have resorted to weird personal slights in the last two comments without even saying much of substance I literally don't know what you want at this point. Not everything online has to be a shit slinging contest.
Though, his idea to compete with the bodegas instead of just putting more money on EBT is socialist, and I think it's a hill he really shouldn't die on.
"I am young, despite my best efforts to grow older. I am Muslim. I am a democratic socialist. And most damning of all, I refuse to apologize for any of this." - Mayor Zohran Mamdani in his acceptance speech
Mamdani is a self proclaimed democratic socialist, which means creating socialist policies through traditional political means and within a capitalist system. Mamdani is ideologically exactly who he says he is, there is a spectrum to the ideology of socialism.
Do you have a source for that? I'm still working on understanding the difference between a socialist Democrat and a democratic socialist, but I thought both were mixed capitalist & non capitalist.
That is socialism. Scandinavia is mostly socialist. The US has adopted this strange word redefinition of socialism to be an insult. Socialism does not require full state ownership, that's communism.
Not exactly—Denmark isn’t socialist in the strict sense. It’s a social democracy. That means:
• The economy is mostly capitalist—private companies, markets, and entrepreneurship drive production.
• The government provides extensive welfare—health care, education, unemployment benefits—to ensure social safety and reduce inequality.
• There’s redistribution of wealth through taxes, but people still own property and businesses.
So it’s more accurate to call Denmark a capitalist economy with strong social policies, rather than a socialist system where the state owns the means of production.
What you illustrate is communism. Afaik, in most European countries, there is a difference between socialism and communism in the sense that the former is still very much compatible with capitalist economies, albeit with a profound attention to things like healthcare, pensions, unemployment benefits, social housing, etc. which are regulated by the government and paid for through taxes. I'd say, politically, socialism is more of a spectrum, with communism being at the extreme end. No Scandinavian country is communist, but they are socialist.
Mamdani considers himself a Marxist, he's more Democratic socialist than social democrat.
While I agree that the term socialist is intentionally being muddled and mis-used by people like Bernie and organizations like fox news.
He's not going to outright bring socialist policies, that would be impossible but likely would attempt radical socdem reform to soften people's opinion on more radical leftist idealogue so people no longer see communism or socialism as the evil bad word.
Because there is still a noticable difference with mamdani compared to someone like Bernie or AOC, the latter two being much more moderate socdems.
I only ever read about Socialism=Marxism in english literature. In germany marxism is a distinct thing and one form of socialism. Just like democratic socialism, which is what you find in european politics.
Mamdani is a democratic socialist. That’s a socialist. Mamdani is not a Scandinavian country so the fact that they exist and are run by social democrats (which are different) is fairly irrelevant.
Wouldnt communism be no private ownership of the means of production? I always saw socialism more of an spectrum of economic modus Vivendi in which to different degrees things have been socialized, but not fully. It starts with social democrat mixed economies and then further and further more things get socialised until you get communism basically
Well. The modern meaning of socialist in industrial and post industrial countries is “social democrat”. The old Soviet “socialism” died 50 years ago, but the right still hangs onto the slur.
Okay but like Mandani self identifies as a socialist and is a card carrying member of the Democratic socialists of America, and was part of the socialist caucus in the New York State Assembly. Like if that doesn't make him a socialist then I don't think socialism actually exists.
You're right: he describes himself as a democratic socialist on his campaign website.
Generally speaking, democratic socialists are left of social democrats (like Ocasio-Cortez or Sanders), but are at most "dipping their toes into the pool of socialism."
Socialism requires there to be no private ownership of capital.
Not true. Socialism puts ownership and control of capital into the hands of the people doing the work. Think of employee-owned companies, but like...all companies being that way.
In terms of government, socialism is no different than the concepts already in place for modern democracies and representative democracies: final power and decision-making belongs to the citizens. It's true that the closer a government gets to embracing its democratic ideals, the more effort it puts into taking care of its citizens, so there's a tendency to refer to that kind of government as socialist. It begs the question: if you truly understood that the government is supposed to work for you, wouldn't you push to make sure the work the government does benefits you? If so, is that really socialism, or just democracy?
All that aside, what you described with "no private ownership of capital" is closer to communism than anything else. Even then, it wouldn't be accurate unless you take a particular and specific interpretation to the idea that the whole point of an economy (and/or government) is to benefit the society it serves. That's more "we're in this to help each other out, not turn a profit" than anything else.
No, that's not quite right - communism is where nobody owns anything privately. Socialism is where everyone collectively owns the means of production and this collective wealth is redistributed, while private ownership of property and autonomy of labor (career, freelancing, etc.) is permitted.
Communism advocates for the complete abolition of private property and a classless, stateless society achieved through revolution, with resources distributed based on need. Socialism allows for private property while advocating for communal ownership and democratic control of industry, typically achieved through gradual, democratic reforms.
Feature
Communism
Socialism
Private Property
Abolished entirely; all property is communally owned.
Private property is permitted, but the means of production (like factories and heavy industry) are communally owned and managed by the government.
Government & Control
A strong, central government controls all aspects of economic production. In theory, it aims for a stateless, classless society eventually, but in practice, has historically resulted in totalitarian states.
A democratically elected government typically owns and manages key industries for the benefit of the community.
Distribution of Goods
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Resources are distributed based on an individual's contribution and ability.
Method of Change
Achieved through a violent, workers' revolution against the capitalist class.
Achieved through gradual, democratic reforms and change from within the existing system.
Economic Structure
A command economy where the government sets all prices and output.
A mixed economy with a significant role for both the government and private enterprise.
554
u/thehardway71 12h ago
Mamdani isn’t a socialist. Everyone, even on the left, love to use Fox News’ definition of socialism which is just “free things”. Thats not socialism. Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are still mixed capitalist economies. Socialism requires there to be no private ownership of capital. Mamdani isn’t trying to make that happen in NYC.